An alarm bell rang through the exam hall, three years of exam ban wasting youth.
Compiled from: Guangming Net, Nanguo Jinbao, Guangxi Legal Education, Shandong High Court
Case review
On November 2, 2019, Luo took the National Primary and Secondary School Teacher Qualification Examination in the Guangxi examination area. During the exam, the alarm of her phone, which was placed on her exam seat, went off while the phone was turned off.
The Guangxi Autonomous Region Education Department considered that, according toArticle 6, Item 4 of the "Measures for Handling Violations in National Education Examinations": "Carrying equipment with the function of sending or receiving information during the exam shall be deemed as cheating."Luo's act of carrying a phone during the exam should be deemed as cheating.
此外，Article 20 of the "Regulations on Teacher Qualifications" stipulates: "If cheating occurs in the teacher qualification exam, the exam results shall be invalidated, and the individual shall be prohibited from taking the teacher qualification exam again for three years."。
On January 22, 2020, the Guangxi Autonomous Region Education Department made a decision: Luo's exam results were invalidated, and she was prohibited from taking the teacher qualification exam again for three years.
[1] Court Opinion
[1] Lost the first-instance trial.
[2] Luo, dissatisfied, sued the Autonomous Region Education Department in Nanning Railway Transport Court, demanding the revocation of the decision regarding her. She argued that her mistake was unintentional, as she carried a turned-off phone and had no intention of cheating.
[3] The first-instance court held that a mobile phone, whether powered on or off, is a device capable of sending or receiving information. The Autonomous Region Education Department’s determination that Luo’s act of bringing a phone to the exam constituted cheating was not improper.
[4] In accordance with the "Regulations on Teacher Qualifications" issued by the State Council, the handling of Luo’s cheating behavior was legally correct.
[5] On September 22, 2020, the first-instance court rejected Luo’s lawsuit.
[6] Lost the second-instance trial.
[1] Luo, dissatisfied, appealed to the Nanning Railway Transport Intermediate Court.
[2] She argued that she had brought a switched-off phone into the exam venue, and at that time, the phone did not have "the function of sending or receiving information," and she had not actually used it to cheat.
[3] The court of second instance held that the Autonomous Region Education Department's decision to "invalidate the exam results and prohibit Luo from taking the teacher qualification exam for three years" was based on clear facts and correct application of the law.
此外，[4] The "Regulations on Teacher Qualifications" were issued by the State Council and are administrative regulations, while the "Measures for Handling Violations in National Education Examinations" were issued by the Ministry of Education and are departmental rules.[5] According to the principle of prioritizing laws and regulations, the Autonomous Region Education Department's handling of Luo's cheating behavior based on the "Regulations on Teacher Qualifications" was not improper.
[6] The court of second instance rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment.
[1] The author's perspective
Cheating in exams has always existed. As technology becomes more advanced, various cheating methods have surfaced. National and local governments, as well as universities, have successively introduced corresponding regulations or rules, stipulating that any cheating behavior in exams will be strictly dealt with, even leading to a ban from taking exams.
Despite this, some still defy the rules, and there are news reports every year about various types of exam cheating. Some cases result from candidates being careless and not understanding the exam rules, while others are caught due to a fluke mentality. Generally, exams have rules, and we have been taught from a young age that "mobile phones are not allowed during exams, and even if brought, they must be placed in designated locations." Luo argued that his phone was turned off, and a turned-off phone cannot send or receive information. In my view, this is nothing but quibbling and sophistry. Therefore, both courts rejected Luo's appeal, serving as a warning to all candidates: before the exam, you must carefully understand the exam rules, strictly abide by them, take the exam with integrity, and never bring any "prohibited items" into the exam hall.
